Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to provide his father, who was a resident in a sheltered housing complex, with a reduction in his rent as they indicated they would, in recognition of the additional disturbance caused to him by works being carried out at the sheltered housing complex. He was of the view that they failed to take appropriate steps to address the disturbance caused by these works and failed to deal appropriately, and within a reasonable time frame, with the request for rent reduction.

We found that the council had offered Mr C's father a decant to another property for the period of the major renovation works but he had refused this offer. They paid a disturbance allowance to all residents in recognition of the works, and arranged for new residents facilities and alternative eating arrangements when the lounge was closed and the in-house meals service was terminated. Following Mr C's complaint to the council, they also agreed to make a further payment for the additional level of disruption. We found that they had taken into account the disturbance caused to Mr C's father and made appropriate offers to recognise this. However, we also noted the council's suggestion that a waiver or reduction of Mr C's father's rent for this period was being seriously considered. We felt that the council's correspondence did not clearly highlight that this was a possibility and not a likelihood. In addition, it took the council almost seven months to reach a decision on this point, by which time, Mr C's father had died. As a result of the lack of clarity in their communication, and the significant delay in reaching their decision on the rent reduction, we upheld this aspect of the complaint and recommended that the council write to Mr C to apologise for the failings identified.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the lack of clarity in their consideration of the possibility of a rent reduction/abatement and for the significant delay in reaching a decision on additional disturbance payments.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to require her neighbour to submit a planning application to install roof lights (velux windows). She said that they had allowed her neighbour to install the roof lights on the basis that planning and listed building consents for this work had been granted in 1996 and were 'kept alive' because the building had been painted and works to the internal stairwell were carried out within five years of the consent being granted. The council took the view that as the consented works had started, the permissions should not lapse. Ms C was of the view that these permissions should have lapsed after five years and new applications submitted for any further works. She was also concerned that without the requirement to submit a new application, she had lost the right to make representations to the council.

We considered the background to the case and sought independent advice from our planning adviser. We found that there was no evidence to support the council's view that the building had been painted since 1996, and that this work did not form part of the original planning consent. We also found that the internal stairwell, where works appear to have taken place, also did not form part of the original planning permission. The only work which required planning permission, and which was granted in 1996, was the installation of the roof lights. However, as these roof lights were not installed until 2014, the original planning and listed building consents should have lapsed in 2001, five years after the original permission was granted.

We noted that the council had based their decision solely on information provided by the neighbour and failed to take any steps to verify what works had been carried out under the original permissions. We also noted that even when it should have become apparent that the original permissions had lapsed, they did not take steps to consider any form of enforcement action to have the roof lights approved. Furthermore, we noted that the council had failed to provide reasonable, or accurate, responses to Ms C's complaint. As we were satisfied that the original permissions had lapsed, in line with the time limits applied by planning law at the time, and as the council's subsequent justification for their decision making was very poor, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• carry out a full review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this case and give careful consideration to what action would now be appropriate in order to obtain the necessary consents for this development (both planning and listed building) within the terms of the relevant legislation;
• introduce appropriate procedures to ensure any similar cases, relating to historic applications, are assessed against the correct legal framework and provide training to staff to ensure they are familiar with this process;
• review how their planning department responds to stage 2 complaints in order to ensure that the factual basis of any decision is checked before the decision letter is issued; and
• apologise to Ms C in writing for providing her with inaccurate information in their response to her complaint and for failing to give proper consideration to the question of whether or not the installation of the windows required submission of a new planning application.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council failed to properly consider a planning application to build a house next door to their property. They said that their objections had not been properly taken into account and that the council failed to implement the terms of the permission granted in a reasonable way. They said that their amenity and enjoyment of their home had been detrimentally affected. They alleged that their representations about this were not dealt with properly.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers and we found that, in initially considering the planning application, the council had dealt with it both reasonably and appropriately; Mr and Mrs C's objections were taken into account and permission was granted subject to conditions. Thereafter, as works progressed, Mr and Mrs C brought the council's attention to the fact that not all the conditions were being complied with. The council decided to pursue a negotiated settlement with the developer (rather than to take enforcement action), which they were entitled to do. There was no evidence that Mr and Mrs C's representations were ignored although it was clear that they were not dealt with in the way that Mr and Mrs C would have preferred. The complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Mr C was a planning applicant who had his application refused. Mr C complained about what he felt to be inexplicable and unjustifiable inconsistencies in the council's approach to planning policy. He was concerned that the council had taken a different approach to determining the planning application for the development, compared with their processing of other planning applications that he regarded to be very similar and within the same local plan area.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our adviser was satisfied that the council demonstrated that they dealt properly with their assessment and determination of this particular planning application, in terms of procedure and in full accordance with their statutory duties and obligations.

In the absence of evidence of administrative failure, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of several concerns he brought to their attention in relation to health and safety at a caravan site. In particular, Mr C was concerned that he contacted the council about health and safety concerns about an unfenced bridge on the site but several months later the bridge was still unfenced, and the council did not tell him that they did not consider this to be a health and safety issue (as they are required to do under their policy, if they decide not to investigate a reported issue). Mr C also said that statements by the council that signs on the site had been updated and that raised manhole covers had been addressed were incorrect. Mr C said that, although some signs had now been updated, this was not done at the time the council said it was. In relation to the manhole covers, Mr C said there were a number of manhole covers which were raised above ground level, which he considered to be a tripping risk (and he provided some photographs of these).

The council said they had inspected the unfenced bridge and raised this with the site owners, but did not intend to take any further formal action (as there was no significant health and safety breach). The council also said that signs on the site had been updated, and provided photographs of these. In relation to the raised manholes, the council explained that this was a misunderstanding. Their previous statements that the manholes had been fixed referred to concerns that the manholes had inadequate covers, and that there was a risk of vermin or small children accessing the manhole. The council said they were now satisfied that this had been addressed, and provided photographs of the work. In relation to Mr C's concerns about the raised manholes constituting a tripping risk, the council said they did not share these concerns and did not consider this to be a health and safety risk.

After investigating these issues, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had complied with their policy in responding to Mr C's concerns about the bridge, and had kept him updated about the overall work on the site, as well as offering to meet to discuss all of his outstanding concerns. We accepted that the misunderstanding about the manholes appeared to be a communication error, and we found no evidence that the council had acted unreasonably in determining that the manholes no longer constituted a health and safety risk. In relation to the signage, we noted that both parties agreed signage had now been updated, and so we did not consider that there was value in pursuing this matter further.

Summary

Mr C kept items of property in a locked storage cupboard on the ground floor of his building. Mr C tried to gain access to the cupboard but the lock had been changed. Mr C discovered that council staff had changed the lock and had given the key to a neighbour. Mr C complained to the council, but was not satisfied with their response. Mr C complained to us that the council failed to check whether the storage cupboard was in use or owned before changing the lock, and that the explanation given to him about why his complaint was rejected was inadequate.

The council confirmed that they did fail to check whether the storage cupboard was in use. We found inconsistencies in the council's investigation of Mr C's complaint, and we felt their decision was based on flawed or incomplete information, which meant their explanation to Mr C was inadequate. We also found that the council failed to respond to Mr C's complaint within the timescales set out in their complaints procedure. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reinvestigate Mr C's case in order to clarify the inconsistencies, and provide evidence for a full and accurate account of events, then reconsider Mr C's claim for reimbursement notifying us of the outcome;
• apologise to Mr C for the mishandling of his complaint;
• remind relevant staff of the requirements of the model complaints handling procedure in relation to timeframes, and delays or extensions; and
• raise the complaints handling failings with relevant staff to ensure a similar situation does not recur.

Summary

Mr C, who is an advice worker, complained that the council gave his client (Mr A) misleading advice about the storage of his belongings during a homelessness application, and that they unreasonably delayed in responding to Mr A's requests for assistance.

Mr A's property was being repossessed, and there was likely to be a period between him leaving that property and taking up a new tenancy. Mr A said that he had been told by the council that, if he were to become homeless during this period, the council could provide storage for his belongings. He was later told that the council's policy had changed and they could no longer provide storage. However, in Mr A's case, storage was not required as the council had secured an extension to the repossession of his property, meaning he could move directly to a new property. Although we recognise that the process of making a homelessness application was very stressful for Mr A, we were satisfied that the council did not mislead Mr A. We accept their reasoning that storage was not needed as they were able to negotiate an extension to the repossession of Mr A's property which allowed time for him to be offered a permanent housing arrangement.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to communicate with Mr A following his referral from an NHS service to the council's customer and community services team. We noted the impact that Mr A said the delay in communication had on his existing poor health. The council had acknowledged the delay and apologised for it, so although we upheld the complaint, we did not make any recommendations. We were satisfied that the council had apologised and taken appropriate action to try to prevent this from happening again.

Summary

Since 2011, Mrs C had been raising issues with the council about the damage caused to her boundary fence by the council's grass-cutting contractor. Although her complaints were referred directly to the contractor, she received no response. The damage to her fence continued each year, and each year she contacted the council to complain about the work of the contractor. In September 2014, she complained again when the contractor's machine slipped down a bank beside her fence which was further damaged when the machine was pulled out. She complained again at a later date and a claim was submitted to the contractor who did not uphold her claim, stating that the fence was in a very poor condition. Mrs C escalated her complaint to the council, and they investigated but did not uphold her complaint.

Our investigation considered all the communication between Mrs C and the council, the council's records of their contact with Mrs C, and the complaints handling procedure. We found that, although it was not possible to assess whether the fence had been damaged by the contractor, the council had not ensured that the contractor had provided an adequate level of service and had not dealt reasonably with her complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the handling of Mrs C's complaints about the contractor;
• review how complaints referred to contractors are logged and recorded on the council's system;
• consider what steps to take to ensure that complaints to contractors working on the council's behalf are reasonably handled; and
• consider whether some form of financial redress is appropriate to reflect the failings identified.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council that her child's school had not reasonably addressed reports of bullying or provided support to her child. The council investigated and found that there was no evidence that bullying had taken place or that this was the cause of the anxiety and stress that her child was suffering from.

Mrs C was unhappy and brought her complaint to us. Our investigation found that the council did not consider the incidents to be bullying as the other pupil involved had significant additional support needs which caused their behaviour towards Mrs C's child. We considered that this was in line with the anti-bullying policy in place at the time. We also found that the school was small and that, although it was clear that steps had been taken to keep the children apart, this was difficult to achieve. There was evidence that support had been provided to Mrs C's child for his specific needs, including the difficult relationship with the other pupil.

However, we considered that the council had inappropriately made reference to Mrs C's relationship with the school in their complaint report rather than centring on her child. We found evidence of an incident between the children that had not been included in the Council's report and considered that this did not provide reassurance that all matters had been included when assessing Mrs C's concerns. We also considered that there was no evidence that the school had assessed the potential impact on Mrs C's child before proposing a strategy to inform visiting staff of the difficulties in the class. Finally, we found that the council's complaint investigation had not fully considered the impact of the situation at the school on Mrs C's child in terms of their anxiety and stress. On balance, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had charged him a call-out fee for their shared repair service. The council advised that there would be a call-out charge if the issue was not considered as an emergency. When a council officer attended Mr C's property it did not appear to be an emergency and no action was taken, and a call-out charge was issued to Mr C.

We found that Mr C had been informed of the possibility of a call-out charge and there was no evidence that the issue should have been noted as an emergency. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.